Archived: Emmanuel House

Updated 21 June 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on the 25 and 28 April 2016.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included any safeguardings or notifications. Notifications are documents submitted to us to advise of events that have happened in the service and the provider is legally required to tell us about. We used this information to plan what we were going to focus on during our inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with the person who lived at the service to gain their views and their feedback has been incorporated into the report where possible. Due the person’s limited communication we also spent time observing within the communal area. We spoke with the registered manager and two care staff who work at the service.

As part of the inspection we reviewed the care records of the person who is presently living there and this included their care plan and risk assessments. We also reviewed the service’s policies, their audits, complaint and compliment records, medication records and staff support records.

Updated 21 June 2016

The inspection took place on the 25 and 28 April 2016.

Emmanuel House provides accommodation for up to two people living with some form of learning disability. The service provides accommodation and support and at the time of this inspection they had one vacancy. The person living at the service had done so for a number of years.

The provider explained they had had some difficulties developing the service due to only having one placement for a number of years. This has placed financial restraints on monies available to run the service and had an impact on the finances available for maintenance, staff training and general development of the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manager the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The person at the service was treated with dignity and respect and staff interacted with them in a kind, caring and sensitive manner. Staff showed a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect people.

The service had a small regular and consistent staff team. The provider had appropriate recruitment checks in place which helped to protect people and ensure staff were suitable to work at the service, but no new staff had been employed at the service for a number of years. There were sufficient numbers of skilled, well trained and qualified staff on duty. Staff told us that they felt well supported in their role and could gain advice and support from the registered manager at any time, but formal supervision had not been regularly received. All staff held a recognised qualification in care and had the skills and experience to provide the care required. Due to financial restraints of the service training updates had not been routinely organised and staff required refresher training on the service’s mandatory training.

We found that a detailed assessment had been carried out and that the care plan had been developed around the individual’s needs and preferences. We saw that there were risk assessments in place and plans on how the risks were to be managed. Support was provided to help the person receiving support in taking every day risks and encouraging them to take part in daily activities and outings. Systems were in place to ensure appropriate assessments could be carried out where people living at the service may not be able to make decisions for themselves and to help ensure their rights would be protected.

There were systems to enable people to raise concerns and people could be confident they would be listened to and appropriate action taken.

Medication was well managed and this helped to ensure that the person living at the service received their medication safely and on time. They were also supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and were offered choice at meal times. We also found that the person had access to a range of healthcare providers, such as their GP, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place, but these had not been routinely completed. Systems were in place to enable the person living at the service, their relatives and other health care professionals the opportunity to feedback on their experiences. Staff stated that they involve their present service user in day to day decisions and the running of the service and this practice was observed during our inspection.